Evaluation of pattern of presentation and a group of possible predictors of restoration failure in NCCLs

Prof. A.O. Arigbede

##issue.vol## 49 ##issue.no## 2 (2020)##common.commaListSeparator## Original Articles

##issue.vol## 49 ##issue.no## 2 (2020)

Evaluation of pattern of presentation and a group of possible predictors of restoration failure in NCCLs

Original Articles

##submissions.published## 2020-09-14

Prof. A.O. Arigbede⁺⁻

Prof. A.O. Arigbede

pdf (îngilîzî)

##article.abstract##

Background: Early failure of restorations placed on teeth with NCCLs is well known despite the improvement in resin and adhesive technology.

Objective: This study was designed to evaluate the pattern of presentation of NCCLs and a group of possible predictors of failure of restorations in NCCLs.

Methodology: A double-blind randomized clinical study was conducted among patients who presented at the restorative clinic of a Nigerian Teaching Hospital with at least two adjacent NCCLs on vital teeth excluding molars. Ethical approval was obtained for the study. From the calculated sample size, 83 resin composite and 83 RMGIC restorations were done for 29 patients following standard procedure. Tooth for restoration and the material involved were selected by simple random sampling. Review evaluations were done 1 week, 4 months, 8 months and 12 months post operatively. Two independent calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations. Relevant FDI criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration were employed. Log-rank analysis was used to
compare the survival times of the two materials while the Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of failure. The level of significance was p < 0.05.

Results: Most of the patients, 17 (58.6%) were more than 50 years in age and the majority, 21(72.4%) were males. The premolars were the most treated teeth (41.0%). Most of the restorations were done in the maxillary arch (120, 72.3%) and left side of the mouth (85, 51.2%). At the 12th month review appointment, seven (5.8%) out of the 120 upper restorations and 9 (19.6%) out of the 46 lower restorations had failed. The mean survival time for restorations in the maxillary arch (46.49±0.74 weeks) was higher than that of the lower (40.95±2.15 weeks). The highest failure rate was recorded on the premolars. Log rank statistical test showed a statistically significant difference between the rates of failure in relation to the arch (X2=6.948, df=1, p=0.008) and the survival times in relation to the material (X2=7.005, df=1, p=.008). Cox regression analysis revealed that the type of material was the only significant predictor of survival of the restorations (p=0.028).

Conclusion: More NCCLs were found in the older individuals, males, premolars, upper and left side of the arch. The type of material used for restoration was the only predictor of failure or survival.

Keywords: Cervical abrasion, Composite resins, non-carious cervical lesion, resin modified glass ionomer cement.

Résumé
Contexte: L’échec précoce des restaurations placées sur les dents avec des NCCL est bien connu malgré l’amélioration de la technologie des résines et des adhésifs.

Objectif : Cette étude a été conçue pour évaluer le modèle de présentation des NCCL et un groupe de prédicteurs possibles d’échec des restaurations dans les NCCL.

Méthodologie : Une étude clinique randomisée en double-aveugle a été menée auprès de patients qui se sont présentés à la clinique de restauration d’un hôpital d’enseignement nigérian avec au moins deux NCCL adjacents sur les dents vitales, à l’exception des molaires. Une approbation éthique a été obtenue pour l’étude. À partir de la taille d’échantillon calculée, 83 restaurations en composite de résine et 83 restaurations RMGIC ont été effectuées pour 29 patients suivant une procédure standard. La dent à restaurer et le matériau impliqué ont été sélectionnés par simple échantillonnage aléatoire. Les évaluations des examens ont été effectuées 1 semaine, 4 mois, 8 mois et 12 mois après l’opération. Deux indépendants examinateurs calibrés ont évalué les restaurations. Les critères FDI pertinents pour l’évaluation clinique de la restauration ont été utilisés. L’analyse log-rang a été utilisée pour comparer les temps de survie des deux matériaux tandis que l’analyse de régression de Cox a été effectuée pour déterminer les prédicteurs d’échec. Le niveau de signification était p < 0,05.

Résultats : La plupart des patients, 17 (58,6%) étaient âgés de plus de 50 ans et la majorité, 21 (72,4%) étaient des hommes. Les prémolaires étaient les dents les plus traitées (41,0%). La plupart des restaurations ont été réalisées dans l’arche maxillaire (120, 72,3%) et le côté gauche de la bouche (85, 51,2%). Lors du rendez-vous d’examen du 12e mois, sept (5,8%) des 120 restaurations supérieures et 9 (19,6%) des 46 restaurations inférieures avaient échoué. Le temps de survie moyen pour les restaurations de l’arche maxillaire (46,49 ± 0,74 semaines) était supérieur à celui du bas (40,95 ± 2,15 semaines). Le taux d’échec le plus élevé a été enregistré sur les prémolaires. Le test statistique log-rang a montré une différence statistiquement significative entre les taux d’échec par rapport à l’arche (X 2= 6,948, df = 1, p = 0,008) et les temps de survie par rapport au matériau (X 2 = 7,005, df = 1, p = 0,008). L’analyse de régression de Cox a révélé que le type de matériau était le seul prédicteur significatif de la survie des restaurations (p = 0,028).
Conclusion : Plus de NCCL ont été trouvés chez les individus plus âgés, les hommes, les prémolaires, le côté supérieur et gauche de l’arche. Le type de matériau utilisé pour la restauration était le seul prédicteur d’échec ou de survie.
Mots-clés: abrasion cervicale, résines composites, lésion cervicale non carieuse, ciment ionomère de verre modifié à la résine.non-carious cervical lesion, resin modified glass ionomer cement.

Correspondence: Prof. A.O. Arigbede, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Univrsity of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. E-mail: abiodun.arigbede@uniport.edu.ng

pdf (îngilîzî)

##submission.citations##

Kolak V, Pešic D, Melih I, et al. Epidemiological investigation of non-carious cervical lesions and possible etiological factors.. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10 (7):e648-e656.

Nguyen C, Ranjitkar S, Kaidonis JA and Townsend GC. A qualitative assessment of non-carious cervical lesion in extracted human teeth. Aust Dent J. 2008;53(1):46-51.

Mujeeb F, Soomro ZA, Rashid S and Hosein T. Risk factors associated with non-carious cervical lesions at a teaching hospital. J Pak Dent Assoc. 2015,24(4): 188-193.

Nascimento MM, Gordan VV, Qvist V, et al. Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group.Restoration of noncarious tooth defects by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142 (12):1368-75.

Selma J, Amra V, Samra K, Irmina T and Anita B. Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Hercegovina. The Prevalence, Distribution and Expression of Noncarious Cervical Lesions (NCCL) in Permanent Dentition. Materia Socio Medica. 2010 ;22:200-204.

Sneed WD. Non-carious cervical lesions: why on the facial? A theory J Esthet Restor Dent. 2011;23(4):197-200.

Kampanas NS and Antoniadou M. Glass Ionomer Cements for the Restoration of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions in the Geriatric Patient. J. Funct Biomater. 2018; 9(3). pii: E42. doi: 10.3390/jfb9030042.

Duangthip D, Man A, Poon PH, et al. Occlusal stress is involved in the formation of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review of abfraction. Am J Dent.2017;30(4):212-220.

Ceruti P, Menicucci G, Mariani GD, Pittoni D and Gassino G. Non carious cervical lesions. A review. Minerva Stomatol. 2006;55(1-2):43-57.

Pecie R, Krejci I, Bortolotto T.Garcia-Godoy F, Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) – A clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: Restoration. Am J Dent. 2011;24(3):183-192

Perez CdosR, Gonzalez MR, Prado NAS, et al. Restoration of Noncarious Cervical Lesions: When, Why, and How. Int J Dent 2012;2012:687058.doi:10.1155/2012/687058.

Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I and Brownlee A. Module 11: Sampling (IDRC). In designing and conducting health systems research projects: volume 1 Proposal Development and Fieldwork. Canada: International Development Research Center. 2003. Available at: http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-33011-201-1-DOTOPIC.html. [Accessed on May 21, 2019].

Adeleke , Oginni AO. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2012;2(4):21–37.

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation- clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12(4):259-272.

Teixeira DNR, Zeola LF, Machado AC, Gomes RR, Souza PG, Mendes DC, Soares PV. Relationship between noncarious cervical lesions, cervical study.lesions, cervical dentin hypersensitivity, gingival recession, and associated risk factors: A cross-sectional study. J Dent. 2018;76:93-97.doi:10.1016/j.dent.2018.06.017.

Yan W and Yang D. The Prevalence, characteristics and risk factors in non-carious cervical lesion: A survey on 295 people in Guangzhou area. Oral Hyg Health. 2014;2:125. doi:10.4172/2332-0702.1000125

Ibrahim KG and Abu-bakr NH, Ibrahim YE. Prevalence of dental abfraction among a sample of Sudanese patients. Arch Orofac Sci. 2012;7(2):50-55.

Sunny OA, Philip OU and Amaechi UA. Risk factors for tooth wear lesions among patients attending the dental clinic of a Nigerian Teaching Hospital, Benin City: A pilot study. Sahel Med J.2015;18:188-191

Oginni A.O., Olusile AO and Udoye CI. Non-carious cervical lesions in a Nigerian population: abrasion or abfraction? Int Dent J. 2003;53(5):275-279.

Borcic J, Anic I, Urek MM and Ferreri S. The prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions in permanent dentition. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(2):117-123.

Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH and Mancl L. Characteristics of noncarious cervical lesions: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133 (6):725-733.

Santiago SL, Passos VF, Vieira AHM, et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Braz Dent J. 2010;21(3):229-234.

Franco EB, Benetti AR, Ishikiriama SK, et al. Five-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2006;31 (4):403-408.

Kubo S, Kawasaki K, Yokota H and Hayashi Y. Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2006;34(2):97-105.

Burrow MF and Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2007;32(1):11-15.

Terry DA, McGuire MK, McLaren E, Fulton R and Swift EJ Jr. Perioesthetic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of carious and noncarious cervical lesions: Part II. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15(5):284-296.

Ichim I, Li Q, Loughran J, Swain MV and Kieser J. Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Part I. Modelling of restorative fracture. Dent Mater. 2007;23(12):1553-1561.